With Nicole Kidman returning to the Oscars this weekend as a nominee, here's Abstew on a handful of roles for which Oscar did not recognize her...

When I was a child there was an Oscar almanac that I would consult for my Oscar obsession (this was long before the days of the internet). The list of actors with multiple nominations didn't begin unless the actor had 5 nominations or more. Ever since then I've had it in my head that 5 is the magical number when it comes to Oscar; a sign of a better actor, showing that their body of work over the years is worth recognition, rather than the "one and done" that so many actors face. Since Nicole Kidman has always been one of my favorites, I've thought it odd that she's been nominated a relatively low number of times compared to the quality she produces. Certainly she ranks with Kate and Cate, for example, who both have 7 nominations...

With her nomination for Supporting Actress in Lionthis past year, she finally scored her 4th nomination. As we noted in the Smackdown podcast, the Academy has repeatedly snubbed her for some of her best star turns. In honor of Kidman's impressive body of work, let's take a look at 5 times she had a legitimate shot (some much closer than others) or just plain deserved to score an Oscar nomination.

Best Actress: To Die For (1995)

Awards and Nominations (*denotes a win):Golden Globe Best Actress in a Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy*, BAFTA Award Best Actress in a Leading Role, Boston Society of Film Critics Award Best Actress*, Broadcast Film Critics Association Award Best Actress*, Seattle Internation Film Festival Best Actress*, Southeastern Film Critics Association Award Best Actress*

As weather girl turned murderess, Suzanne Stone, obsessed with television fame, Kidman finally broke free from the shadow of then husband, Tom Cruise, with her first showcase role in Hollywood. She had had her breakthrough with the Aussie thriller Dead Calm (1989) years before and had even scored a Golden Globe nomination for Best Supporting Actress for 1991's Billy Bathgate, a film remembered (if at all) by Kidman completists and Globe enthusiasts. But To Die For finally made the industry start paying attention to her as an actress. With a Golden Globe win and other major nominations, it looked like her first nomination was all but assured. Unfortunately on nomination morning she did not make the final five. In a solid year of nominees, it's hard to say who Kidman would replace. Sarandon was the easy favorite to win having never won 4 previous times. And Shue and Streepgave career-best performances with their noms. Some would argue she should replace Thompson, but I would go with Stone who has not been in the conversation since and was arguably in a supporting role.

Best (Supporting) Actress: Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

Awards and Nominations: Satellite Award Best Actress in a Motion Picture nomination, Online Film and Television Association award Best Actress nomination

The Actual Nominees: Best Actress: Annette Bening American Beauty, Janet McTeer Tumbleweeds, Julianne Moore The End of the Affair, Hilary Swank Boys Don't Cry*, Meryl Streep Music of the Heart

It was a disappointment at the box office and for Kubrick lovers expecting more from what would be the auteur's final film. It has grown in esteem over the years, forming something of a cult following. But at the time the one thing people could agree upon was universal acclaim for Kidman's performance, particularly an extended monologue scene in which, while high, she confesses to having fantasies of infidelity. And having just missed for a nomination for To Die For and high off of rapturous reviews for her multiple roles (and brief nudity) in Broadway's The Blue Room, it seemed that the Academy could make-up for that past oversight with a nomination here. It would've also been a way of honoring Stanley Kubrick's legacy as a filmmaker with at least one nomination for the film. Yet even though she only appears at the beginning and very end of the film, as Cruise goes off to masked orgies, Kidman was campaigned as Lead. She certainly could have replaced Meryl, but if someone else should've been nominated in that category it should've been Reese Witherspoon for Election. It would have made more sense had she actually gone supporting where she very easily could have taken the place of Samantha Morton in Sweet and Lowdown.

Best Actress: The Others (2001)

Awards and Nominations: Golden Globe Best Actress in a Motion Picture - Drama nomination, BAFTA Award Best Actress in a Leading Role nomination, Satellite Award Best Actress in a Motion Picture nomination, Online Film Critics Society Award Best Actress nomination, Hollywood Film Awards Best Actress of the Year* (also for her work in Moulin Rouge! and Birthday Girl), Kansas City Film Critics Circle Award Best Actress*, Phoenix Film Critics Society Award Best Actress in a Leading Role nomination

I already know what you're going to say, she couldn't be nominated for The Others because she was already nominated that year for Moulin Roge! and Academy rules don't allow a performer to have multiple nominations in the same category. And I'm not saying her work here should've necessarily been nominated over her work as Satine, although I do think it's stronger. Satine is a movie star performance and arguably her most well-known film, but Grace is a more complex, nuanced performance. And why does this rule exist at all? If you give two (or more) of the best performances in the same year, why shouldn't you be rewarded for it? And that rule doesn't apply to any of the other categories. Films can receive multiple noms in the Best Song category and just the year before Steven Soderbergh was nominated twice for Best Director. If the Oscars truly honor the year's best, why are you limiting who can be honored? Kidman probably would have taken Zellweger's place had she been allowed multiple noms. But looking back at the nominees, I would have her replace Spacek or Berry (who were, coincidentally, the frontrunners that year)

Best Actress: Birth (2004)

Awards and Nominations: Golden Globe Best Actress in a Motion Picture - Drama nomination, International Cinephile Society Award Best Actress nomination, London Critics Circle Film Award Actress of the Year Nomination

Perhaps my all-time favorite Kidman performance. Birth not being recognized as the masterpiece it was at the time of its release really stings. With the double-header of Moulin Rogue! and The Others and her win for The Hours the following year, Kidman's career was white-hot. And instead of starring in easily accessible Oscar bait or CGI-heavy blockbusters (okay, she definitely dipped her toe in both...), she started picking projects with celebrated directors that really challenged both her and audiences. Her work in Dogville this same year could've also been a contender. But people were turned off without even seeing the film after hearing she takes a bath with a young boy. But it's so much more than that. Think of that lingering shot at the Opera, her face a mix of emotions. Think of her Mia Farrow wig and baby doll voice - a little girl lost, still believing in fairy tales and desperate to cling to that happiness she once had. Kidman's work here very easily replaces Swank for a nomination for me, a performance that hasn't quite held up after the flurry of awards season.

Best Supporting Actress: The Paperboy (2012)

Awards and Nominations: Golden Globe Best Supporting Actress nomination, Screen Actors Guild Award Best Performance by a Female Actor in a Supporting Role nomination

With 2 major nominations from the Golden Globes and SAG, it seemed pretty likely that Kidman was receiving her 4th nomination for her go-for-broke performance in Lee Daniels' southern fried potboiler. The film as a whole divided most, but you couldn't deny the power of Kidman's memorable portrayal. How many other A-List actors would be willing to simulate sex in a chair or pee on a former Disney star? Kidman is fearless in the film and unlike anything we'd seen her in before. But unadulterated love for David O. Russell's Silver Linings Playbook allowed fellow Aussie actress Jacki Weaver to sneak in, making Playbook the first film since Reds (1981)to receive nominations in all 4 acting categories. It's a shame that Kidman wasn't able to be nominated, but with her nomination for Lion perhaps this is the start of another wave of future nominations for the deserving star.

4 is a good number for her. The Others was same year are Moulin Rouge. The Paperboy was nothing special, she pee'd on a hottie, so what. 2004 was a competitive year and she shouldn't have misplaced any of the nominees, same for 1995 with To Die For. Sadly, her choice of cosmetic work does not put her in the same group at Cate and Kate.

1995 - You can argue that Stone had a supporting role, but it's hard to argue in retrospect that Kidman in To Die For was more deserving than Alicia Silverstone in Clueless or Julie Delpy in Before Sunrise. Both have become iconic performances.

1999 - If they left anyone out of the Supporting race this year, it was Julianne Moore for Magnolia.

2001 - It's hard for me to agree that she should have displaced the legend Spacek's comeback nomination or Berry's chance at making history for a second lead nomination in one year.

2004 - Personally, I think Swank deserved this nomination. But if you're going to remove her, you have to consider the other non-nominated contenders, like Uma Thurman for Kill Bill or Julie Delpy for Before Sunset. Again, those are two performances that have become iconic - more iconic than Kidman's performance in Birth.

2012 - I don't believe Weaver deserved her nomination either, and this is probably Kidman's strongest case for a nomination that she didn't receive. But there were other strong contenders this year as well, like Judi Dench in Skyfall and Emily Blunt in Looper.

And there were other contenders for Kidman's supporting nod this year, like Janelle Monae and Greta Gerwig. I know Kidman's fans like to think she has not been treated well by the Oscars, but really, four nominations is very good! It's the same number Annette Bening has. No reason to complain.

She should have nominations for Birth, Portrait of a Lady, Dogville, The Others, Margot at the Wedding and more.

But realistically she should be on her 6th nomination. Her only *actual* snubs are for To Die For and The Paperboy, since she couldn't happen for both The Others and Moulin Rouge. In 1995, Stone was supporting and the nomination itself, in hindsight, feels very dated taking into account how influential Kidman's performance would become (just look to interviews that Charlize Theron and Rosamund Pike gave where they cited it as inspiration), and how steeply Stone's career fell off afterwards while Nicole's went in the exact opposite direction. And, personally, I think she's quite bad in the film.

The Jackie Weaver nomination is ridiculous, the most eyebrow raising acting nom of the decade and is a result of simply voting for SLP straight down the line. No further explanation needed. A shame.

To me she's the most overrated and inconsistent actress alive but this is a strong list. I especially love her work in Birth, EWS and The Others. I also think she does bold, fascinating deceptively detailed things in Margot at the Wedding.

I definitely see the case for her in The Others > her in Moulin Rouge, but she was nominated either way. To me the crazy absence is for To Die For - I'd be inclined to say she should not only have been nominated for the Oscar for that, she should have won it. Kind of surprised her work in Dogville wasn't included here, since it's such a powerful performance. As to her more recent supporting turns I'd take her in Stoker over her in The Paperboy any day, but I love Stoker, and quite dislike The Paperboy

I totally agree Kidman should have at least 3 more noms by now argue about which 3,To Die For,Portraat of a Lady and The Paperboy would be my extra 3.

She is indeed daring and fearless in her acting and only comes unstuck in studio type films or blockbusters,she never seems she wants to be in them but is thinking of the next rich character role it'll lead too.

A gr8 piece on someone who has become undervalued with the resurgence of Moore and Blanchett recently.

Lion is so distinct from her other work,the warm deeply lived feeling in it is what touched me most Kidman 'cos I always loved her frostiness

She was definitely robbed for The Paperboy. That performance is an all-timer. I really love her in To Die For, but that is a great Oscar lineup that doesn't include Jessica Lange or Toni Collette, both of whom I think deserve to be in there more than Nicole. I still haven't seen Birth--gawd, that's embarrassing to admit. She is one of my favorites, and she never disappoints.

It's very easy 22 years later to bash Stone's performance and the lady herself,all careers fail at some point,It's a lead role,she gets a full arc and scenes are given over to her by the men,lots of big clips.

She won the GG,she was considered a bit snubbed for BInstinct cos of the sexual nature,she was a huge international box office star,she was a great celebrity,fashion plate,Scorsese chose her for ginger,she lobbied hard for a lead nomination hence her quote to Courtney Love the year after,a prostitute drug addict hooker,how could she miss.

Personally, I hate multiple nominations for performances. I love the finality of having 'just one'. And also, spreading the wealth for acting categories is important as acting nominations are subjective enough, nevermind trying to get voters to agree on 'Body of Work' awards. It also incites a compulsion to ever reward someone when they're in two semi-hits in the same year. It's exquisitely rare for an actor of either gender to have a year like Isablle Huppert has had and I really feel that if multiple performances were allowed, the results would be dire. Remember when ScarJo was cited by various critics groups for Under the Skin ( a great, instrumental part of the mise en scene but hardly an 'acting ' tour de force per se) AND Lucy (emm, how about no?) And Jennifer Lawrence for Silver Linings Playbook (good but c'mon) AND Hunger Games( slumming it)? Feted just for the sake of it....We can't have that now.

Courtney Love, widow of Kurt Cobain, mother of Frances Bean, lead singer of Hole, and award-winning actress, says she's not upset about not being nominated for an Academy Award for her performance in The People vs. Larry Flynt. "Oh, I don't care," she told the New York Daily News. "It wasn't my turn yet. I'm from the rock world and we don't get recognized the first time out." Courtney says the Academy gave her the choice of whether to be nominated as Best Supporting Actress, or nothing at all, and that her people wouldn't let her accept anything less than Best Actress. "Sharon Stone told me getting nominated and losing in the Best Supporting Actress category is a much worse feeling than not getting nominated as Best Actress. She ought to know because she got screwed in Casino." Courtney also mentioned that she's working on the next Hole album, and that Smashing Pumpkin Billy Corgan may produce.

- Wall Of Sound, March 3, 1997

I love both of those women and I'd have had Love (one of my favourite people ever) nominated had it been up to me. Stone is a different animal altogether. I think she's one of the fiercest, most ferociously intelligent women in Hollywood and I reckon they simply didn't know what to do with her. She's made a looooot of trash.

Er...maybe one for To Die For, although the most egregiously overlooked performance of 1995 was and remains Julianne Moore for Safe.

Apart from that...and I know I'm in the minority here...I'd be hard-pressed to put her in my top 5 in any other category in any other year.

Kidmaniacs hate me when I speak this sacrilege...I've just never been a fan. She's gorgeous, but as far as Aussie acting deity is concerned, I don't think she's at the level of a Cate Blanchett or Judy Davis.

I would add MARGOT AT THE WEDDING to this list, for sure. (Noah Baumbach films tend to be overlooked but he consistently directs strong actresses to some of their strongest performances; Gerwig in FRANCES HA, Linney in THE SQUID AND THE WHALE.)

I'm not sure DOGVILLE is nomination-worthy, but I'll never forget Nicole's final moments on screen.

Fun article! Agreed Nicole should be on nomination eight or nine by now. I think her turns in MARGOT and DOGVILLE are magnificent and it's fun to see so many concur in this thread. She's fearless and gives the director the performance they're looking for. She also takes risks by picking projects with very strong directors (unlike Meryl, who almost never does), and as a result her work is going to age very, very well over time. She's the balls!

@,JoshR. I agree with you ,100%. As time has gone on she has become more and more a very boring presence in films. I really liked her at the beginning of her career. She had a vitality and her acting seemed so unaffected. I am not sure what happened. After her Oscar for The Hours for me she has gone downhill. I am not sure she should have won for that movie. Of her later movies The Rabbit Hole is my Oscar to her.

I miss "Portrait of a lady" here, which in my opinion stands out as her best performance to date. On the other hand, I am surprised to see "The others" here, as I do not find anything special in that performance (or in the film at all). Nicole Kidman has certainly some great performances in her resume, but I have something to confess: I hate her in "The hours". Almost as much as in "Australia"...

It really pisses me off when people say that she only 'peed on a hottie' in The Paperboy - like did you actually watch that movie? She really should have got that nomination - fearless, bold, powerful work that was exciting to watch and basically the opposite of everything that Jacki Weaver was doing in SLP.

I think the real surprise that year was that Maggie Smith was snubbed for Jacki Weaver - I never expected Nicole to get in - it was too good for the Academy :P

Man am I the only one who loved Sharon Stone in CASINO? I agree it's more supporting work. But she was firing on all cylinders in that film and really tore shit up.... It's sad to see her stuck in crummy Redbox movies from then on..

Amanda Buffamontezzi: Or how about crediting every great performance by an actor in a given year (if more than one is given) as a single nomination? Yes, I know that what I'm suggesting is something that the Golden Raspberry Awards do, but that's probably their best decision. Their worst (also uncomfortably consistent) decision is placing one actor playing multiple characters in multiple categories AND crediting by gender of character, not gender of actor. Also: No, Courtney, not a SINGLE, no, not even one, performer who started as a ROCK star (Aside from you: Mick Jagger, Tom Waits, Debbie Harry, Meat Loaf, Elvis and David Bowie. Every actor tied to rock (Russell Crowe, Juliette Lewis, Jared Leto, Ryan Gosling, Johnny Depp) who got a nomination went into rock AFTER they started acting, most of them after their nomination) has gotten an acting nomination from the Oscars. A fair amount of people who started as some kind of POP star have (Burl Ives, Streisand, Cher, Madonna, Jennifer Hudson), but if Bowie (maybe the best musician turned actor EVER, and definitely the best of the rock stars to try it out) didn't get a single nomination, what chance did you even have? (For the record: Debbie Harry for Videodrome, Tom Waits for The Best Renfield Ever (whatever else you think of that Dracula movie) and Bowie for Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence are genuinely painful in that regard.)

Nicole Kidman is a good actress, but I get a bit miffed when people complain about the fact that she *only* has four nominations and one Oscar. What about Helena Bonham Carter (2 noms, 0 wins), Judy Davis (2 noms, 0 wins), Toni Collette (1 nomination), and Tilda Swinton (1 nom / 1 win)? They're all exceptional actresses who have been recognized far less than Kidman has.

Nicole's work in "To Die For" definitely stands the test of time and is Oscar worthy, but I really don't know who I'd bump to let that performance in...

Two weekends ago I went a screening of "Casino" at the Museum of the Moving Image in Astoria Queens. "Casino" has long been my personal favorite of Marty's films, but I've been pretty cool to Sharon Stone's work in the film... Until I finally saw "Casino" on the big screen for the first time. Stone was doing whatever the cinematic equivalent is to 'playing to the back of the house,' because I was actually WOW'd by her work (and DeNiro's). It plays much better in a theater than on a television... So I personally wouldn't be so quick to throw out Sharon Stone's nomination in favor of Nicole's work in "To Die For."

I'll echo the sentiment that her first nomination should have DEFINITELY come from "The Portrait of a Lady," which received 2 nominations that year including Supporting Actress... I'd drop either Diane Keaton ("Marvin's Room") OR Kristen Scott-Thomas ("The English Patient") to get Kidman in there.

To me, To Die For created Nicole. She absolutely deserved that Oscar nomination - though I agree it was a tough year - but by *not* getting that nomination a story was created. We're in 2017 and saying she should've got a nomination! It meant that her subsequent work got more attention, which meant that she was able to escape the Billy Bathgates and work as an actress. If she'd got a nomination I fear she'd have gone the same way as Elisabeth Shue - a kind of, "you've had your Oscar nomination, dear, you can go now" from Hollywood.

Elisabeth Shue should've won the Oscar in 1995—no question, full stop. I'd have nominated Kidman, too, along with Moore, Sarandon, and either Silverstone or Streep. (I think Julie Delpy is much better in Before Sunset than Before Sunrise, personally.)

Birth is still Kidman's most accomplished work, in my opinion. 2004 was, again, quite a stacked year, but she should've won that year (Hilary who?) and possibly in 2012. History will be kind to Kidman, who's as fearless as any, even if/when her popular instincts lead her astray at times.

Casino certainly has some fans and detractors on this site! i love Casino- it's my favorite Marty movie 2nd only to Goodfellas. Stone is marvelous in it, as is DeNiro- where was his Oscar buzz? Seriously. The movie works so well, because he is giving such an understated performance (for him anyway). Stone's livewire play to the back of the house performance compliments his understated one perfectly. All of their scenes are wonderful. My first Kidman movie was Batman Forever. I will continue to appreciate that she tried to be an intelligent 3 dimensional person and not that the screaming blonde damsel constantly in distress like Kim Basinger. Half her performance is just screaming.

Kidman should have a total of 1 nomination, that being for To Die For. The love that this site has for Kidman eludes me. For some perplexing reason, people are in awe of her. Not just her performances but also her hideous red carpet gowns, including that parrot outfit she wore last month.

Totally a nomination for The Paperboy should have been a given. She was PHENOMENAL in that role and completely stepped out of her comfort zone. Nicole is also mesmerising now in BIG LITTLE LIES. But who am I kidding? That show belongs to Reese Witherspoon, who is so fun and wicked as a grown up version of Tracy Flick.